In concerning the "Issue 1" statement, I greatly disagree with the
statement. If everyone thought the same and there was no conflicts we would
not have a democracy or any kind of freedom. The human race as we know it
would be very boring and unproductive.
Although negativity does seem to be a part of conflict, good things come
from it also. A person might look at a subject very differently when
another point of view is presented. In fact in businesses conflict can be
good in the sense that positive change can happen from a few people
disagreeing and the compromising for positive change.
In reference to "Issue 1", I believe that although good things can be
derived from sharing like viewpoints it can also cause harm or discontent in
I will first explain the positive points of being agreeable on certain
issues. Next I will give an example of the negative implications that may
occur with this approach. Lastly I will demonstrate the pros and cons of
both methods. I will finally summarize the entire viewpoint.
In support of being agreeable in all aspects of decision making, it may
expedite certain task completions and make things flow easier. In a military
field operation, this would be very appropriate. Soldiers are taught to obey
orders received from higher ranking officials. They are expected to carry
out a task with little debate.It could prove dangerous if the soldier were
to disagree with the mission plan set forth by leadership and not act
Secondly, I will demonstrate how being totally agreeable in a military
situation can be hazardous. In thinking back to the incident of "Abu
Ghraib", where many soldiers carried out horrendously abusive acts during
interrogation of prisoners. These soldiers reported acting according to
orders they received from their authorities. They did not think about
whether it was right or wrong. They followed orders blindly and it cost many
of them their freedom. It was a cruel example of blind-obedience to
instructions or the perception of the orders received.
Thirdly, I will explain the pros and cons of both ideas. If the military
mission calls for someone to do reconacence of a particular location, it
could cost lives if the soldier were to second guess his/her orders. If the
soldier had no further instructions upon reaching the location and he found
that it was possible for him to prevent loss of lives; he should be able to
think outside of the given instructions.
In summary, it is often hard to agree all the time with the viewpoints of
others and doing so can prove criminally hazardous to all those involved
such as in the example of prisoner interrogation. However, if the individual
is able to think independently and make good character determinations based
on the issues, it can also lead to a positive outcome.
Subject: The well being of a society is enhanced when many poeple question authority.
It is important to understand that in a democracy like United states,
elected leaders have the authority to make ultimate decisions. The executive
branch, together with the congress have to share all the information
pertaining an issue, reach an agreemet by either a simple vote or a
sustainable deliberation on behalf of the people. This shouldn't be
considered authoritarian but a democratic process used to deter emminent
threats to a democrancy.
Compare this with with a country like Russia, or China these are self-
imposed autocratic governments that make arbitrary decisions, whose
legislature is just a rubber stamp.Any opposion is crashed. This is the
reason as to why there are more political asylees per capita from
authoritarian countries than any country in the western hemisphere.
I should add , however, that in a democracy credibility and transparacy are
important, if society is to survive.But this doesn't negate the fact that
elected leaders have the constitutional right to act immediately in order to
solve society problems.